Sam Harris, Ben Affleck and Bill Maher (and others) argue Islam

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 There is lots I could

 There is lots I could bitch about with Sam. His Buddhism fetish, his almost blind loyalty to Israel and justyfing torture in some cases.

But Bill and Sam are dead on on this subject. PC crap helps no one and all they are saying is do not get angry at people for getting angry at the right people. 

No, not all Muslims think the way ISIS does. That still does not change the overal climate of rule in the east that is dominated by relgious politics at the expense of girls/women's rights, apostates being punished, oppression of minorities.

 

It pissed me off to know that Yale's humanist group condemned Ali's speech failing to understand she was fighting for a more open society in the east, and especially the rights of girls/women such as Malala. 

Ben's well intended empathy is clouding his view that the barbaric and oppressive acts that still exist in far too much of the east are what Bill, Sam and Ayaan are trying to change.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
 Please, by all means, tell

 Please, by all means, tell us what your problem is with "the Buddhism fetish." You do know Buddhists are atheists by definition, right? So the problem is he's an atheist who doesn't agree with Brian?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: Please, by

iwbiek wrote:

 Please, by all means, tell us what your problem is with "the Buddhism fetish." You do know Buddhists are atheists by definition, right? So the problem is he's an atheist who doesn't agree with Brian?

Nope sorry, just like every other religion in the world, Buddhism has different sects too. Pleanty of supperstition to be found, it is not just about not having your standard invisible sky hero. If you look up the word "Nat" in Buddhism sects you'd know that particular sect believes that they can channel the spirits through their bodies.

China is full of Buddhists they believe in demons and sprits and homapathy too. 

Jews can be secular too so? Jews also have those who do believe in a god, just like they have conservative Jews and liberal Jews.

YOU are the one with the narrow view of Buddhism, not me. Religion is nothing more than our species ignorance of it's own tribal grouping. Buddhism is just as ignorant of this as any other religion.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i didn't say buddhists have

i didn't say buddhists have no superstitions. i said buddhists are atheists. and they are. period. i don't have a narrow view of buddhism; i have a correct view of buddhism. since when do atheists not have superstitions? i suppose you don't have a single one, right? and YOU telling me to look up something about buddhism is rich.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Bill Maher and Sam Harris

Bill Maher and Sam Harris are too far into fear mongering and "us vs them" mentality to say anything rationally.

 

Of course you can rationally critisize Islam without doing that, but they're not.

 

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Bill

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Bill Maher and Sam Harris are too far into fear mongering and "us vs them" mentality to say anything rationally.

Of course you can rationally critisize Islam without doing that, but they're not.

I dont think it is fear.  I think they just view the radicalism Islam projects.

I have known Muslims. Some are really calm and "who cares" attitude 

Others are very agitated and remind me of yellow jacket (hornets). I remember an atheist professor in college who taught ancient humanities. He basically came out and said that the entire story of moses was crap. He said that the dead sea never parted and that if the story was even remotely possible that the lake bed dried up and the people crossed but the chariots got caught in the mud because they were too heavy. The muslims in the classroom erupted. They were shouting at him and throwing insults at him. After class I hung around and listened to the other students talk to them. They were really irritate and agitated. They remained this way for the final three weeks of the class.

The point is that the religion is taught in such a way to each generation that they take it literally. Every word is truth. No one who speaks about their god would be wrong. It is very closed minded and there is ZERO room for challenging them.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: His Buddhism

Brian37 wrote:
His Buddhism fetish

From what I've seen, what Harris' takes from Buddhism is purely the psychological/health benefits of meditation. He does wrap it in flowery language occasionally, but he certainly doesn't give credit to any common Buddhist supernatural beliefs.

Brian37 wrote:
justyfing torture in some cases.

Hmm, you can't really avoid justifying torture in his hypothetical examples. The real torture debate is where principle meets practice. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Harris and Maher can be a

Harris and Maher can be a bit off occasionally, and they are here too, but they also make perfectly valid points. It is true that every member of a religion contributes to the worst that religion can do. But it's also true that the majority in every religion aren't interested in fighting wars to see their religion become #1, or worse. Most people are quite content to let other people with other beliefs alone. Their contributions come in not taking a stand against those who take their religion to extremes, and by supporting their religion and fellow believers without question.

The biggest mistake they (Harris & Maher) make is assuming the conflicts are driven by religion, when religion is merely a contributing factor. The root causes are poverty, education, and a lack of control of life, liberty, and country. Most of which is the direct or indirect fault of the nations in the Western hemisphere.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Harris and

Vastet wrote:
Harris and Maher can be a bit off occasionally, and they are here too, but they also make perfectly valid points. It is true that every member of a religion contributes to the worst that religion can do. But it's also true that the majority in every religion aren't interested in fighting wars to see their religion become #1, or worse. Most people are quite content to let other people with other beliefs alone. Their contributions come in not taking a stand against those who take their religion to extremes, and by supporting their religion and fellow believers without question. The biggest mistake they (Harris & Maher) make is assuming the conflicts are driven by religion, when religion is merely a contributing factor. The root causes are poverty, education, and a lack of control of life, liberty, and country. Most of which is the direct or indirect fault of the nations in the Western hemisphere.

I would normally agree with education or poverty being a factor but some of the biggest attacks on the rest of the population have been from educated and middle class/wealthy individuals. I believe that more of a factor is when one with out self confidence, one who believes they do need to prove to the world or to promote an ideology.

The bombings in Bali, the Tokyo subway sarin attacks in Japan, the 9/11 attacks, are but a few examples of educated people, middle class or wealthy people, who were manipulated by charismatic individuals to take on these attacks against others or even their own race.

There is a whole list of factors to consider. Wanting to fit in, to be accepted, to feel important, to be apart of a bigger plan, to reset life to a simpler format.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Middle class in Iraq is not

Middle class in Iraq is not the same as middle class in North America. The middle east does not have the same wealth distribution that the west has. Information is censored, puppets installed and/or supported by western governments are prevalent, poverty is rampant, and generations have experienced constant violence for hundreds of years.

The most famous attacks are simultaneously the most atypical, which is why they are famous. Daily suicide bombings committed by the less afluent are not reported as widely simply because they occur with regularity. Much like a shooting in the US must be particularly brutal or odd to garner mass media attention, so must a terrorist attack.

Education levels in the middle east are so poor that Israel, outnumbered 100 to one by muslims, can claim almost 40 times as many nobel laureates in physics and chemistry as the rest of the muslim world combined. The only two muslims to win the nobel resided in the UK & US when they conducted the work that won their prizes. The education levels in the middle east are pathetic. Even among the rich, one must have travelled to the west in order to gain a education comparable to the west. The middle class can't afford that any more than the middle class here could afford to send all their children to China for an education.

Most of the occult-like factors most often seen in North America are secondary at best in the middle east. Charisma doesn't put food on the table and defend you from foreign powers. Organisations like Hezbolla and Hamas and ISIS actually do these things. Ineffectually perhaps, in many cases, but more effectively than anyone else does.

Until economic disparity and poverty as well as education levels in the middle east are taken care of, nothing else can affect a solution to the violence.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Middle class in

Vastet wrote:
Middle class in Iraq is not the same as middle class in North America. The middle east does not have the same wealth distribution that the west has. Information is censored, puppets installed and/or supported by western governments are prevalent, poverty is rampant, and generations have experienced constant violence for hundreds of years. The most famous attacks are simultaneously the most atypical, which is why they are famous. Daily suicide bombings committed by the less afluent are not reported as widely simply because they occur with regularity. Much like a shooting in the US must be particularly brutal or odd to garner mass media attention, so must a terrorist attack. Education levels in the middle east are so poor that Israel, outnumbered 100 to one by muslims, can claim almost 40 times as many nobel laureates in physics and chemistry as the rest of the muslim world combined. The only two muslims to win the nobel resided in the UK & US when they conducted the work that won their prizes. The education levels in the middle east are pathetic. Even among the rich, one must have travelled to the west in order to gain a education comparable to the west. The middle class can't afford that any more than the middle class here could afford to send all their children to China for an education. Most of the occult-like factors most often seen in North America are secondary at best in the middle east. Charisma doesn't put food on the table and defend you from foreign powers. Organisations like Hezbolla and Hamas and ISIS actually do these things. Ineffectually perhaps, in many cases, but more effectively than anyone else does. Until economic disparity and poverty as well as education levels in the middle east are taken care of, nothing else can affect a solution to the violence.

Good post. I can agree.


rpcarnell
atheist
Posts: 123
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Christianity and Islam seem

Christianity and Islam seem to be the only two religions who don't allow atheists. You can be an atheist and a Buddhist, or an atheist and a Hindu. These two religions attach supernatural beliefs to morality. These two religions have similar tenets. But Christianity has been more controlled, and today's version of Christianity is a lot less harmful that what it was 5 centuries ago.

Islam hasn't changed much in centuries. This problem has many roots, including governments that are corrupt and rely on religion to keep the masses conformed and ignorant. Patriotism also plays a big role in the problem, given the fact that many of these nations see the west as the enemy.

If ISIS had been one group of crazy Muslims, like those Buddhists that attacked a subway in Tokyo, I wouldn't have linked Islam to ISIS at all, but ISIS is just one of the many nutjobs that seem to pop out of the Middle East. Add to this the fact that the majority of Egyptians do believe that anyone who abandons Islam should get the death penalty, and add to this the fact that in many of these nations you can get executed for criticizing Islam, and you start to think that perhaps these terrorists are not really Charles-Manson types, but people who are the product of their culture. Most Muslims, like most Catholics, are just nominal Muslims, and there are many moderates. Unfortunately the governments of many of these nations, not necessarily UAE, or Kuwait, or Tunisia, but Iran, Arabia, Pakistan, are not giving these moderates a voice at all, so don't expect Pope-Francis-types to appear in the Muslim world anytime soon.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
rpcarnell wrote:don't expect

rpcarnell wrote:
don't expect Pope-Francis-types to appear in the Muslim world anytime soon.



they already have. they're called the ahmadis. they're nonviolent and teach equality for women and cooperation between religion and science. they arose in the punjab at the end of the 19th century and they have their most sizable communities in india and pakistan. they may be a minority in the muslim world, but then again so are "pope-francis-types" in the christian world. according to at least one source, however (the world christian emncyclopedia), they're the fastest growing sect in islam as of the 20th century.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
rpcarnell wrote:Christianity

rpcarnell wrote:

Christianity and Islam seem to be the only two religions who don't allow atheists. You can be an atheist and a Buddhist, or an atheist and a Hindu. These two religions attach supernatural beliefs to morality. These two religions have similar tenets. But Christianity has been more controlled, and today's version of Christianity is a lot less harmful that what it was 5 centuries ago.

Islam hasn't changed much in centuries. This problem has many roots, including governments that are corrupt and rely on religion to keep the masses conformed and ignorant. Patriotism also plays a big role in the problem, given the fact that many of these nations see the west as the enemy.

If ISIS had been one group of crazy Muslims, like those Buddhists that attacked a subway in Tokyo, I wouldn't have linked Islam to ISIS at all, but ISIS is just one of the many nutjobs that seem to pop out of the Middle East. Add to this the fact that the majority of Egyptians do believe that anyone who abandons Islam should get the death penalty, and add to this the fact that in many of these nations you can get executed for criticizing Islam, and you start to think that perhaps these terrorists are not really Charles-Manson types, but people who are the product of their culture. Most Muslims, like most Catholics, are just nominal Muslims, and there are many moderates. Unfortunately the governments of many of these nations, not necessarily UAE, or Kuwait, or Tunisia, but Iran, Arabia, Pakistan, are not giving these moderates a voice at all, so don't expect Pope-Francis-types to appear in the Muslim world anytime soon.

Islam hasn't changed much? how do you figure?

Christianity less harmful?

Buddhists attacked a subway in Tokyo?

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i didn't say

iwbiek wrote:
i didn't say buddhists have no superstitions. i said buddhists are atheists. and they are. period. i don't have a narrow view of buddhism; i have a correct view of buddhism. since when do atheists not have superstitions? i suppose you don't have a single one, right? and YOU telling me to look up something about buddhism is rich.

If you have read the  "New Atheism" by Victor Stenger you'd know that THAT fellow scientist had a problem with Sams claims about "something" to Buddhism.

And again Buddhism just like every other religion was NOT arround 200,000 years ago. Our species still managed to fuck and reproduce. So it is not the center of the universe or anything special anymore than Christianity or Islam.

 

I don't care if they are atheists. Other atheists outside Buddhism have STUPID conspiracy beliefs like 9/11 conspiracies. Others claim Gene Rodneberry invented the cell phone. Met one once who claimed we do live on because of string theory. 

You make a distinction between god belief and superstition. No, in reality "god" is a form of superstition. It still amounts to looking for a pattern that is not there.

Buddhism is strictly, like every other religion, a product of tribal traditions. It has no special power over evolution and evolution would have occured if it had not been invented. 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Buddhism

 When I think of Buddhism I recall watching Buddhists selling small cages with birds inside them to people who could then free the birds, presumably with the idea of gaining 'karma' points for the act. I find that very dishonest - the birds are caught and put in the cages for the sole purpose of allowing people to gain points by freeing them.

This was in the grounds of a Buddhist temple in Thailand. I had heard about the practice, but seeing it happening right in front of me just brought me to the the point of face-palming at another example of the silliness people will display in the name of religion, AKA 'superstition'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote: When I

BobSpence wrote:

 When I think of Buddhism I recall watching Buddhists selling small cages with birds inside them to people who could then free the birds, presumably with the idea of gaining 'karma' points for the act. I find that very dishonest - the birds are caught and put in the cages for the sole purpose of allowing people to gain points by freeing them.

This was in the grounds of a Buddhist temple in Thailand. I had heard about the practice, but seeing it happening right in front of me just brought me to the the point of face-palming at another example of the silliness people will display in the name of religion, AKA 'superstition'.

I agree. While travelling in China there was a practice of buying squirrels and setting them free. The squirrels would run around, up a tree, etc, then return to the master. I saw this and shook my head in disblief. How typical of us humans to get caught up in a superstition.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And again

Brian37 wrote:

And again Buddhism just like every other religion was NOT arround 200,000 years ago. Our species still managed to fuck and reproduce. So it is not the center of the universe or anything special anymore than Christianity or Islam.

Nor was government, of any type. 

 

Quote:

I don't care if they are atheists. Other atheists outside Buddhism have STUPID conspiracy beliefs like 9/11 conspiracies. Others claim Gene Rodneberry invented the cell phone. Met one once who claimed we do live on because of string theory. 

I heard of an atheist who has the STUPID belief that evolution is the answer to everything.

 

Quote:

Buddhism is strictly, like every other religion, a product of tribal traditions. It has no special power over evolution and evolution would have occured if it had not been invented. 

Democracy is strictly, like every other government, a product of tribal traditions. It has no special power over evolution and evolution would have occured if it had not been invented. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No, in reality

Brian37 wrote:
No, in reality "god" is a form of superstition.



that's fine. but superstition is not synonymous with theism, no matter how much you would like it to be. buddhists are atheists. period. and 9/11 conspiracy theories are not superstitions. they may be fallacious, but they're not superstitions. go read a fucking dictionary.


Brian37 wrote:
Buddhism is strictly, like every other religion, a product of tribal traditions. It has no special power over evolution and evolution would have occured if it had not been invented. 

 

 

 




why do you keep hammering points no one is contesting? whoever said buddhism is the cause of evolution or morality or "fucking" or is the "center of everything"? certainly not buddhists.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote: When I

BobSpence wrote:

 When I think of Buddhism I recall watching Buddhists selling small cages with birds inside them to people who could then free the birds, presumably with the idea of gaining 'karma' points for the act. I find that very dishonest - the birds are caught and put in the cages for the sole purpose of allowing people to gain points by freeing them.

This was in the grounds of a Buddhist temple in Thailand. I had heard about the practice, but seeing it happening right in front of me just brought me to the the point of face-palming at another example of the silliness people will display in the name of religion, AKA 'superstition'.




and the point of this anecdote is...?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:BobSpence

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

 When I think of Buddhism I recall watching Buddhists selling small cages with birds inside them to people who could then free the birds, presumably with the idea of gaining 'karma' points for the act. I find that very dishonest - the birds are caught and put in the cages for the sole purpose of allowing people to gain points by freeing them.

This was in the grounds of a Buddhist temple in Thailand. I had heard about the practice, but seeing it happening right in front of me just brought me to the the point of face-palming at another example of the silliness people will display in the name of religion, AKA 'superstition'.


and the point of this anecdote is...?

Superstitions


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

 When I think of Buddhism I recall watching Buddhists selling small cages with birds inside them to people who could then free the birds, presumably with the idea of gaining 'karma' points for the act. I find that very dishonest - the birds are caught and put in the cages for the sole purpose of allowing people to gain points by freeing them.

This was in the grounds of a Buddhist temple in Thailand. I had heard about the practice, but seeing it happening right in front of me just brought me to the the point of face-palming at another example of the silliness people will display in the name of religion, AKA 'superstition'.


and the point of this anecdote is...?

Superstitions




obviously. i meant, how does it add to the question that brought buddhism up in the first place, i.e., what is brian's problem with harris's "buddhism fetish" (as he calls it)? so far, his whole point seems to be "buddhists have superstitions," which no one is contesting. i'm waiting for him (or bob or anybody) to justify his apparent reasoning that the fact that some, or even most, buddhists follow strange superstitions makes it undesirable for atheists to find and incorporate any benefits the religion might have. so far he refuses to even distinguish between the terms "superstition," "religion," and "theism," and seems to strongly imply that the superstitions of buddhists makes them unworthy of the term "atheist," even though that's exactly what they are, along with jains and a great many hindus.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Superstitions


obviously. i meant, how does it add to the question that brought buddhism up in the first place, i.e., what is brian's problem with harris's "buddhism fetish" (as he calls it)? so far, his whole point seems to be "buddhists have superstitions," which no one is contesting. i'm waiting for him (or bob or anybody) to justify his apparent reasoning that the fact that some, or even most, buddhists follow strange superstitions makes it undesirable for atheists to find and incorporate any benefits the religion might have. so far he refuses to even distinguish between the terms "superstition," "religion," and "theism," and seems to strongly imply that the superstitions of buddhists makes them unworthy of the term "atheist," even though that's exactly what they are, along with jains and a great many hindus.

I know, which is why I've basically given up trying to carry a deep conversation with him. It is annoying that things are repeated over and over and over again with no forward progression in the conversation.

I'm not sure Brian understands the concept of buddhism.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:BobSpence

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

 When I think of Buddhism I recall watching Buddhists selling small cages with birds inside them to people who could then free the birds, presumably with the idea of gaining 'karma' points for the act. I find that very dishonest - the birds are caught and put in the cages for the sole purpose of allowing people to gain points by freeing them.

This was in the grounds of a Buddhist temple in Thailand. I had heard about the practice, but seeing it happening right in front of me just brought me to the the point of face-palming at another example of the silliness people will display in the name of religion, AKA 'superstition'.


and the point of this anecdote is...?

To point out a clear example of the belief system promoting the opposite of 'wisdom', a blindness to a clear example of a flaw in their practice. An example of how even Buddhism can 'poison' people's attitudes and thinking.

Did you really not get that?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:iwbiek

BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

 When I think of Buddhism I recall watching Buddhists selling small cages with birds inside them to people who could then free the birds, presumably with the idea of gaining 'karma' points for the act. I find that very dishonest - the birds are caught and put in the cages for the sole purpose of allowing people to gain points by freeing them.

This was in the grounds of a Buddhist temple in Thailand. I had heard about the practice, but seeing it happening right in front of me just brought me to the the point of face-palming at another example of the silliness people will display in the name of religion, AKA 'superstition'.


and the point of this anecdote is...?

To point out a clear example of the belief system promoting the opposite of 'wisdom', a blindness to a clear example of a flaw in their practice. An example of how even Buddhism can 'poison' people's attitudes and thinking.

Did you really not get that?




oh i got it. i was just giving the benefit of the doubt (see post 22).

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Huh, my first thought was

 Huh, my first thought was "what a brilliant low operating cost business, wonder if I could convince those PETA idiots to fall for it." Keeping idiots occupied with harmless things is hardly poision, it keeps them from finding actual damaging things to do with their time and excess cash.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Superstitions


obviously. i meant, how does it add to the question that brought buddhism up in the first place, i.e., what is brian's problem with harris's "buddhism fetish" (as he calls it)? so far, his whole point seems to be "buddhists have superstitions," which no one is contesting. i'm waiting for him (or bob or anybody) to justify his apparent reasoning that the fact that some, or even most, buddhists follow strange superstitions makes it undesirable for atheists to find and incorporate any benefits the religion might have. so far he refuses to even distinguish between the terms "superstition," "religion," and "theism," and seems to strongly imply that the superstitions of buddhists makes them unworthy of the term "atheist," even though that's exactly what they are, along with jains and a great many hindus.

I know, which is why I've basically given up trying to carry a deep conversation with him. It is annoying that things are repeated over and over and over again with no forward progression in the conversation.

I'm not sure Brian understands the concept of buddhism.

 

Another form of group think, another placebo invented by humans. Another religion that is not required for evolution to occur. 

Aruing details does not make reliigon special or unique. It is still a form of gap filling. 

 

And I never said Buddhists were not capable of being atheists, you also have cultural Jews who do not believe in a god. Still does not make the rituals credible beyond a placebo.

AND I have gone after atheists who have other bullshit claims who are NOT buddhists. I have run into atheists who claim Gene Rodenberry invented the modern cell phone. I've had other atheist s claime the warp drive from Star Trek is possible. I've had other atheists claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

Anyone here who thinks I single out Buddhism or ANY religion out of spit or hate is flat out wrong. It is the claim, the logic, not human rights. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Buddhists were

Brian37 wrote:
Buddhists were not capable of being atheists

not "capable." they are. by definition. buddhism does not admit the ontological existence of any god or gods. period. it has nothing to do with being "cultural." the RELIGION is ATHEISTIC. accept it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Question

iwbiek wrote:

 Please, by all means, tell us what your problem is with "the Buddhism fetish." You do know Buddhists are atheists by definition, right? So the problem is he's an atheist who doesn't agree with Brian?

Why is Buddism atheistic. I don't know a thing about buddism except there's alot of humming taking place. (Question is asked in good faith)

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
because buddhism does not

because buddhism does not admit any ontology at all. nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism. whenever buddhism talks about gods (usually borrowed from the old vedic pantheon), it is understood that these are conceptualizations, mere projections of the ego, which is itself illusory.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Very well,

iwbiek wrote:
because buddhism does not admit any ontology at all. nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism. whenever buddhism talks about gods (usually borrowed from the old vedic pantheon), it is understood that these are conceptualizations, mere projections of the ego, which is itself illusory.

Thank you.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Bill

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Bill Maher and Sam Harris are too far into fear mongering and "us vs them" mentality to say anything rationally.

 

Of course you can rationally critisize Islam without doing that, but they're not.

 

 

NO, they are NOT fearmongering. Saudi Arabia does not allow women to drive, they also have deemed atheists terrorists and have also recently cracked down on all non majority religious people.

Iran will have someone arrested for apostasy and or murdered for such. They will arrest gays and even murder them.

Even in westernized Morocco gays can be arrested. One girl commetted suicide rather than marry her rapist.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali had her documentary friend stabbed to death with a note in his chest "your next" meaning her, and to this day still lives under threat of death.

Now what people keep missing about their blasphemy is that they are NOT saying all Muslims. What they are attacking is the region's climate controled by the few holding everyone else hostage, wich is REAL.

Sam and Bill value the likes of Malala and the world would be a better place if the few holding the majority hostage if more like Malala had the freedom all humans want.

PC crap does not help the oppressed in the east. It is not a matter of "most", it is a matter of just enough of the few are holding that region back.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Brian37 wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Bill Maher and Sam Harris are too far into fear mongering and "us vs them" mentality to say anything rationally.

 

Of course you can rationally critisize Islam without doing that, but they're not.

 

 

NO, they are NOT fearmongering. Saudi Arabia does not allow women to drive, they also have deemed atheists terrorists and have also recently cracked down on all non majority religious people.

Iran will have someone arrested for apostasy and or murdered for such. They will arrest gays and even murder them.

Even in westernized Morocco gays can be arrested. One girl commetted suicide rather than marry her rapist.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali had her documentary friend stabbed to death with a note in his chest "your next" meaning her, and to this day still lives under threat of death.

Now what people keep missing about their blasphemy is that they are NOT saying all Muslims. What they are attacking is the region's climate controled by the few holding everyone else hostage, wich is REAL.

Sam and Bill value the likes of Malala and the world would be a better place if the few holding the majority hostage if more like Malala had the freedom all humans want.

PC crap does not help the oppressed in the east. It is not a matter of "most", it is a matter of just enough of the few are holding that region back.

 

 

 

 




yeah, but they're not saying "saudi arabia, iran, morocco, etc.," they're saying "islam," which is the same old orientalist bullshit of westerners not taking the time or the trouble to see the incredible heterogeneity of the so-called "east"--a heterogeneity that surpasses "western" cultures--and instead using a broad brush because they all look the same to us anyway. there is sooo much more to the fucking mid-east and north africa than islam. it would be like me saying "christianity" instead of "germany, france, spain, italy, america, the uk, etc." do you have any idea how enormously different saudi arabia is from iran? never mind how enormously different saudi arabia is from jordan, lebanon, syria, the UAE, yemen, etc.


people like maher and harris and YOU just act like it's all one big beige mass over there, with no significant differences from place to place worth mentioning, because, quite frankly, it's much easier than actually undergoing years of study about the area, isn't it? and even easier than facing the ethical complexities resulting from that study. especially if you're a cable talk show host and a neuroscientist who suddenly fancies himself a pop philosopher, and you know that one thing that doesn't sell books or spike ratings is moral ambiguity and actually telling people they're going to have to either puzzle it out for themselves or else let it alone. you know one person i've never seen shooting his or her mouth off about religion on maher's show? a single reputable scholar with years of training and field work in his or her area. wonder why that is? probably because they'd spend most of the show saying, "well, it's not all that simple, bill," and that would just turn off way too many viewers, wouldn't it? i'm sure you'd change the channel after a matter of seconds.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Bill Maher and Sam Harris are too far into fear mongering and "us vs them" mentality to say anything rationally.

 

Of course you can rationally critisize Islam without doing that, but they're not.

 

 

NO, they are NOT fearmongering. Saudi Arabia does not allow women to drive, they also have deemed atheists terrorists and have also recently cracked down on all non majority religious people.

Iran will have someone arrested for apostasy and or murdered for such. They will arrest gays and even murder them.

Even in westernized Morocco gays can be arrested. One girl commetted suicide rather than marry her rapist.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali had her documentary friend stabbed to death with a note in his chest "your next" meaning her, and to this day still lives under threat of death.

Now what people keep missing about their blasphemy is that they are NOT saying all Muslims. What they are attacking is the region's climate controled by the few holding everyone else hostage, wich is REAL.

Sam and Bill value the likes of Malala and the world would be a better place if the few holding the majority hostage if more like Malala had the freedom all humans want.

PC crap does not help the oppressed in the east. It is not a matter of "most", it is a matter of just enough of the few are holding that region back.

 

 

 

 


yeah, but they're not saying "saudi arabia, iran, morocco, etc.," they're saying "islam," which is the same old orientalist bullshit of westerners not taking the time or the trouble to see the incredible heterogeneity of the so-called "east"--a heterogeneity that surpasses "western" cultures--and instead using a broad brush because they all look the same to us anyway. there is sooo much more to the fucking mid-east and north africa than islam. it would be like me saying "christianity" instead of "germany, france, spain, italy, america, the uk, etc." do you have any idea how enormously different saudi arabia is from iran? never mind how enormously different saudi arabia is from jordan, lebanon, syria, the UAE, yemen, etc.
people like maher and harris and YOU just act like it's all one big beige mass over there, with no significant differences from place to place worth mentioning, because, quite frankly, it's much easier than actually undergoing years of study about the area, isn't it? and even easier than facing the ethical complexities resulting from that study. especially if you're a cable talk show host and a neuroscientist who suddenly fancies himself a pop philosopher, and you know that one thing that doesn't sell books or spike ratings is moral ambiguity and actually telling people they're going to have to either puzzle it out for themselves or else let it alone. you know one person i've never seen shooting his or her mouth off about religion on maher's show? a single reputable scholar with years of training and field work in his or her area. wonder why that is? probably because they'd spend most of the show saying, "well, it's not all that simple, bill," and that would just turn off way too many viewers, wouldn't it? i'm sure you'd change the channel after a matter of seconds.

Yes they are using the word "Islam" just as they would have if it were Christianity before the age of Enlightenment. Now again, I would advise you to READ "Infidel" By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and for that matter find her recent speech at Yale and listen to that. She uses the word "Islam" too. She was raised in Islam and she would agree that political correctness does not help those who are oppressed in the East. And she too would not be saying "all Muslims" when saying "Islam" herself. All of them are talking about the lack of an Islamic age of Enlightening. And only a fool would think the totality of the Middle East is ruled by secular pluralists. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT AND YOUR PC BULLSHIT IS NOT HELPING THOSE WHO ARE REALLY OPPRESSED.

You are so busy playing maryter for those who are not victims you get angry at the wrong people and enable the oppressors.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
brian, in your world "PC" is

brian, in your world "PC" is clearly shorthand for "being educated about the fucking topic." and how am i a martyr, exactly? you're the one on here every day squealing like a stuck pig about "oppression," yours and others'. also, to be a martyr you have to be attacked, and you and i both know which one of us catches more flak on a regular basis. you invented the fucking martyr complex. "ohhh, guys used to beat me up for liking abba, ohhhh, everyone at my work is out to give me shit for being an atheist, ohhhh, the fatcats fired me for every reason except being an unskilled, unnecessary, and generally unlikeable asshole, boo-fuckin'-hoo-hoo."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yes they are

Brian37 wrote:
Yes they are using the word "Islam" just as they would have if it were Christianity before the age of Enlightenment.



yeah, because god knows europe had absolutely nothing going for it before the enlightenment than christianity. are you out to prove you're as ignorant of european history as you are that of the rest of the fuckin' world?"

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:brian, in your

iwbiek wrote:
brian, in your world "PC" is clearly shorthand for "being educated about the fucking topic." and how am i a martyr, exactly? you're the one on here every day squealing like a stuck pig about "oppression," yours and others'. also, to be a martyr you have to be attacked, and you and i both know which one of us catches more flak on a regular basis. you invented the fucking martyr complex. "ohhh, guys used to beat me up for liking abba, ohhhh, everyone at my work is out to give me shit for being an atheist, ohhhh, the fatcats fired me for every reason except being an unskilled, unnecessary, and generally unlikeable asshole, boo-fuckin'-hoo-hoo."

How the hell do you get that from Brian's use of the term "PC"?? I am not going to automatically back up Brian on everything, but this post is just over-the-top BS in your continuing obsession with finding something to rubbish in Brian's every post. Are you really trying to give Brian reason to consider himself a martyr? Have you nothing more useful to contribute here? i'm going to have to dig up the absolute self-serving crap I recall you posted some time ago defending 'cherry-picking'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:iwbiek

BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
brian, in your world "PC" is clearly shorthand for "being educated about the fucking topic." and how am i a martyr, exactly? you're the one on here every day squealing like a stuck pig about "oppression," yours and others'. also, to be a martyr you have to be attacked, and you and i both know which one of us catches more flak on a regular basis. you invented the fucking martyr complex. "ohhh, guys used to beat me up for liking abba, ohhhh, everyone at my work is out to give me shit for being an atheist, ohhhh, the fatcats fired me for every reason except being an unskilled, unnecessary, and generally unlikeable asshole, boo-fuckin'-hoo-hoo."

How the hell do you get that from Brian's use of the term "PC"?? I am not going to automatically back up Brian on everything, but this post is just over-the-top BS in your continuing obsession with finding something to rubbish in Brian's every post. Are you really trying to give Brian reason to consider himself a martyr? Have you nothing more useful to contribute here? i'm going to have to dig up the absolute self-serving crap I recall you posted some time ago defending 'cherry-picking'.




because anytime i, or anyone else here for that matter, points out brian's erroneous thinking and oversimplification of issues, he pulls the PC card. go back to the scores of discussions where he has played the PC card, do your research, or fuck off. let me ask you something, do you honestly think brian is educated about religions? do you think he knows the difference between a wahhabi and a twelver shia? or a bengali vaishnava and a tamil shaiva? or a fucking methodist and a presbyterian, for that matter? why the fuck am i asking you; you don't even know that shit. or do you think actually having a basic knowledge about a religion (because none of those questions i asked was even esoteric) is irrelevant to discussing it?


do whatever the fuck you want to do, bob, and post whatever the fuck you want to post. yeah, i'm sure there are more than a couple of things i've posted on this site over the years that i would qualify or even regret, but you know what the big difference is between brian and me? i would own up to it. he stands doggedly by whatever shite he's written over the years, and when someone calls him out on it to the point that it's just getting ridiculous, he turns tail and runs from the discussion. do you really want to line up brian's and my self-serving posts from over the years and see which one of us has the lion's share? because even you can't be so willfully blind to your buddy's activity that you wouldn't know how that would turn out.


as for my defense of cherry-picking, you can call it self-serving as much as you like, but that just shows me you have no valid theoretical objections: you just don't like it because ultimately your view of religions and the history of ideas is as shallow and dilettantish as brian's. that is something i will stand by, so dig away. i'll even fucking reiterate the argument here if you like, just to save you the trouble. now, go pull this big-daddy-stepping-in-to-settle-shit act somewhere else. i'm not fucking impressed.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Superstitions


obviously. i meant, how does it add to the question that brought buddhism up in the first place, i.e., what is brian's problem with harris's "buddhism fetish" (as he calls it)? so far, his whole point seems to be "buddhists have superstitions," which no one is contesting. i'm waiting for him (or bob or anybody) to justify his apparent reasoning that the fact that some, or even most, buddhists follow strange superstitions makes it undesirable for atheists to find and incorporate any benefits the religion might have. so far he refuses to even distinguish between the terms "superstition," "religion," and "theism," and seems to strongly imply that the superstitions of buddhists makes them unworthy of the term "atheist," even though that's exactly what they are, along with jains and a great many hindus.

I know, which is why I've basically given up trying to carry a deep conversation with him. It is annoying that things are repeated over and over and over again with no forward progression in the conversation.

I'm not sure Brian understands the concept of buddhism.

 

Another form of group think, another placebo invented by humans. Another religion that is not required for evolution to occur. 

Is it possible that evolution becomes stagnant?

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:because

iwbiek wrote:
because buddhism does not admit any ontology at all. nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism. whenever buddhism talks about gods (usually borrowed from the old vedic pantheon), it is understood that these are conceptualizations, mere projections of the ego, which is itself illusory.

So would Buddhism agree or not with Descartes "Cogito ergo sum"?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:iwbiek

BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
because buddhism does not admit any ontology at all. nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism. whenever buddhism talks about gods (usually borrowed from the old vedic pantheon), it is understood that these are conceptualizations, mere projections of the ego, which is itself illusory.

So would Buddhism agree or not with Descartes "Cogito ergo sum"?

I always like to say, "I think therefore I am not", but I defer to iwbiek for a more educated response.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:iwbiek

BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
because buddhism does not admit any ontology at all. nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism. whenever buddhism talks about gods (usually borrowed from the old vedic pantheon), it is understood that these are conceptualizations, mere projections of the ego, which is itself illusory.

So would Buddhism agree or not with Descartes "Cogito ergo sum"?




absolutely not. i would think that would be obvious with no ontology. nor is buddhism nor even "eastern thought" in general the only sophisticated criticism of cartesian dualism.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:BobSpence

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
because buddhism does not admit any ontology at all. nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism. whenever buddhism talks about gods (usually borrowed from the old vedic pantheon), it is understood that these are conceptualizations, mere projections of the ego, which is itself illusory.

So would Buddhism agree or not with Descartes "Cogito ergo sum"?


absolutely not. i would think that would be obvious with no ontology. nor is buddhism nor even "eastern thought" in general the only sophisticated criticism of cartesian dualism.

That phrase isn't an expression of cartesian dualism - it addresses the much more fundamental question of the existence of a 'self'. I have always regarded it as one of the most fundamentally true things Descates said, whereas i have real problems with most, if not all, of the rest of his ideas, such as 'dualism'.

If Buddhism disagrees with it, then that is just another reason, IMHO, to not take Buddhism seriously, along with the idea 'nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism'.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:iwbiek

BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
because buddhism does not admit any ontology at all. nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism. whenever buddhism talks about gods (usually borrowed from the old vedic pantheon), it is understood that these are conceptualizations, mere projections of the ego, which is itself illusory.

So would Buddhism agree or not with Descartes "Cogito ergo sum"?


absolutely not. i would think that would be obvious with no ontology. nor is buddhism nor even "eastern thought" in general the only sophisticated criticism of cartesian dualism.

That phrase isn't an expression of cartesian dualism - it addresses the much more fundamental question of the existence of a 'self'. I have always regarded it as one of the most fundamentally true things Descates said, whereas i have real problems with most, if not all, of the rest of his ideas, such as 'dualism'.

If Buddhism disagrees with it, then that is just another reason, IMHO, to not take Buddhism seriously, along with the idea 'nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism'.

I find the "I think therefore I am" a falsehood. Also the entire "illusion thing" in buddhism is the (emotional) attachment we place on that which is around us. Loved ones, cars, houses, money, etc. Those attachments are the illusion. It isn't that the person next to you isn't really there. They do exist. Their body is the shape that it is, with five fingers, five toes..etc. The car you drive isn't an illusion. It exists.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
because buddhism does not admit any ontology at all. nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism. whenever buddhism talks about gods (usually borrowed from the old vedic pantheon), it is understood that these are conceptualizations, mere projections of the ego, which is itself illusory.

So would Buddhism agree or not with Descartes "Cogito ergo sum"?


absolutely not. i would think that would be obvious with no ontology. nor is buddhism nor even "eastern thought" in general the only sophisticated criticism of cartesian dualism.

That phrase isn't an expression of cartesian dualism - it addresses the much more fundamental question of the existence of a 'self'. I have always regarded it as one of the most fundamentally true things Descates said, whereas i have real problems with most, if not all, of the rest of his ideas, such as 'dualism'.

If Buddhism disagrees with it, then that is just another reason, IMHO, to not take Buddhism seriously, along with the idea 'nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism'.

I find the "I think therefore I am" a falsehood. Also the entire "illusion thing" in buddhism is the (emotional) attachment we place on that which is around us. Loved ones, cars, houses, money, etc. Those attachments are the illusion. It isn't that the person next to you isn't really there. They do exist. Their body is the shape that it is, with five fingers, five toes..etc. The car you drive isn't an illusion. It exists.

So you don't agree with the 'I think therefore I am' proposition.

I see it as pretty much a truism, that you can't really doubt your own existence, if you are self-aware, ie, thinking. He seems to be pointing out the blindingly obvious that thinking a coherent thought has to assume that there is an entity thatis doing the thinking, ie that the thinker exists.

I am genuinely interested in why you see the proposition as false.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:That phrase

BobSpence wrote:
That phrase isn't an expression of cartesian dualism

of course it is. are you saying that axiom could just as well apply to solopsism? how can the thinker think, in a cartesian sense, without an object to apprehend, even if it's just his own physical self?
Buddhism wrote:

If Buddhism disagrees with it, then that is just another reason, IMHO, to not take Buddhism seriously, along with the idea 'nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism'.

 


a., i've never once said anyone should take buddhism seriously. i've merely said that if someone is going to criticize it, or any other religion, they should criticize it on its own merits, and not from a position of hysteria.


b., what exists in any absolute sense? what is irreducible? what can be shown not to be merely a matrix of relationships between more subtle components? theists would say god, more or less. buddhists would say nothing. so would i, but that wouldn't make me a buddhist.


c., regardless of your thoughts about b., it's clear that the crux of the matter is that your axioms are not the axioms of buddhism. fair enough. but that's a philosophical position, so don't try to play it off as some sort of scientific one.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

I find the "I think therefore I am" a falsehood. Also the entire "illusion thing" in buddhism is the (emotional) attachment we place on that which is around us. Loved ones, cars, houses, money, etc. Those attachments are the illusion. It isn't that the person next to you isn't really there. They do exist. Their body is the shape that it is, with five fingers, five toes..etc. The car you drive isn't an illusion. It exists.

So you don't agree with the 'I think therefore I am' proposition.

I see it as pretty much a truism, that you can't really doubt your own existence, if you are self-aware, ie, thinking. He seems to be pointing out the blindingly obvious that thinking a coherent thought has to assume that there is an entity thatis doing the thinking, ie that the thinker exists.

I am genuinely interested in why you see the proposition as false.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet? Since an apple can't say or think that statement, is it any less what it is? You see it as a fruit that can be eaten, but what does another person see it as? You give it meaning and substance. Does a horse that eats the apple give it any less substance or meaning? If there was nothing to eat it, does it rot on the ground and have any less meaning or substance to the bacteria? Does the apple really need you for it to be what it is?

"I think therefore I am".

"I think therefore I am not".

Which statement has more or less truth to it?

(edit)

"I think of an apple, therefore it exists"?

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
because buddhism does not admit any ontology at all. nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism. whenever buddhism talks about gods (usually borrowed from the old vedic pantheon), it is understood that these are conceptualizations, mere projections of the ego, which is itself illusory.

So would Buddhism agree or not with Descartes "Cogito ergo sum"?


absolutely not. i would think that would be obvious with no ontology. nor is buddhism nor even "eastern thought" in general the only sophisticated criticism of cartesian dualism.

That phrase isn't an expression of cartesian dualism - it addresses the much more fundamental question of the existence of a 'self'. I have always regarded it as one of the most fundamentally true things Descates said, whereas i have real problems with most, if not all, of the rest of his ideas, such as 'dualism'.

If Buddhism disagrees with it, then that is just another reason, IMHO, to not take Buddhism seriously, along with the idea 'nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism'.

I find the "I think therefore I am" a falsehood. Also the entire "illusion thing" in buddhism is the (emotional) attachment we place on that which is around us. Loved ones, cars, houses, money, etc. Those attachments are the illusion. It isn't that the person next to you isn't really there. They do exist. Their body is the shape that it is, with five fingers, five toes..etc. The car you drive isn't an illusion. It exists.

So you don't agree with the 'I think therefore I am' proposition.

I see it as pretty much a truism, that you can't really doubt your own existence, if you are self-aware, ie, thinking. He seems to be pointing out the blindingly obvious that thinking a coherent thought has to assume that there is an entity thatis doing the thinking, ie that the thinker exists.

I am genuinely interested in why you see the proposition as false.




the buddhist would immediately ask, "who's doing the thinking?" regardless, again, it seems you're committed to the positivist or physicalist position (and physicalism is not incompatible with all buddhist schools of thought, especially in the mainstream tradition). this is your axiomatic starting point and that's fine. you take descarte's epistemology and ontology at face value, and that's how axioms work. you either accept them or you don't. south asian thought is essentially idealists, whereas most western thought, particularly until the 20th century, is realist. the worst you can say about buddhist thought is "i don't agree with it."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I always thought the phrase

I always thought the phrase was interesting, but not for how it has been adopted. Being self aware implies that you do actually exist, but it doesn't prove it. It merely postulates that with no obvious alternative, you might as well assume you exist. It's kind of like Pascals Wager, only with a logically supported conclusion instead of a mess of fallacy:
If you don't exist, whether you think you do or not is irrelevant. But if you do exist, then your survival and capacity to contribute to society largely depends on assuming you exist, and it is therefore in your interest to do so. There is no logical reason to assume anything but that you exist. This doesn't mean you actually exist, simply that there is no advantage (and much disadvantage) in assuming you don't.

Some might say the capacity of self awareness means you exist, but I don't really agree. If that self awareness is artificial, simulated, or a fragment of a bigger picture (or even a conglomeration of fragments, which is what all life forms are), then you are an illusion. Illusions don't really exist. I mean, they exist in the sense they can be perceived, but they don't exist in the sense that they are actually in existence.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Agree

BobSpence wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
because buddhism does not admit any ontology at all. nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism. whenever buddhism talks about gods (usually borrowed from the old vedic pantheon), it is understood that these are conceptualizations, mere projections of the ego, which is itself illusory.

So would Buddhism agree or not with Descartes "Cogito ergo sum"?


absolutely not. i would think that would be obvious with no ontology. nor is buddhism nor even "eastern thought" in general the only sophisticated criticism of cartesian dualism.

That phrase isn't an expression of cartesian dualism - it addresses the much more fundamental question of the existence of a 'self'. I have always regarded it as one of the most fundamentally true things Descates said, whereas i have real problems with most, if not all, of the rest of his ideas, such as 'dualism'.

If Buddhism disagrees with it, then that is just another reason, IMHO, to not take Buddhism seriously, along with the idea 'nothing exists in any absolute sense in buddhism'.

I find the "I think therefore I am" a falsehood. Also the entire "illusion thing" in buddhism is the (emotional) attachment we place on that which is around us. Loved ones, cars, houses, money, etc. Those attachments are the illusion. It isn't that the person next to you isn't really there. They do exist. Their body is the shape that it is, with five fingers, five toes..etc. The car you drive isn't an illusion. It exists.

So you don't agree with the 'I think therefore I am' proposition.

I see it as pretty much a truism, that you can't really doubt your own existence, if you are self-aware, ie, thinking. He seems to be pointing out the blindingly obvious that thinking a coherent thought has to assume that there is an entity that is doing the thinking, ie that the thinker exists.

I am genuinely interested in why you see the proposition as false.

We evolved becasue of a need to. There had to be something to see for the eye to evolve. The eye wouldn't evolve to see an illusion. Illusion cannot be unless one is illusionary on the first count. Was the brain producing illusions before the forming of the eye.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth